A few updates on this area: - mhrivnak drafted an e-mail to go to pulp-list asking for feedback on when we should stop building for EL6. - I've drafted a blog post [0] that will be published in a way coordinated with the pulp-list e-mail
- It would appear that Django 1.8 may be added to EPEL6 along with the python27 (non-scl) runtime. Read more about that here[1] and the python27 runtime would be from here[2]. I don't think this changes the proposal for us to stop building and supporting EL6, but it is some info I wanted to relay. [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/26/files [1]: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]/thread/7QXMTUFUXEQ6BSEWHA3VWGU2H7VETR4P/ [2]: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/python/python2.7_epel6/packages/ On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Ina Panova <[email protected]> wrote: > I like this approach. > > w/r to the blog post, would be good to explicitly point the users to give > feedback on pulp-list (who knows, maybe not every user is aware of this > list), since the comments are disabled. > > > -------- > Regards, > > Ina Panova > Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. > > "Do not go where the path may lead, > go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brian Bouterse" <[email protected]> > To: "Elyezer Rezende" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 7:06:12 PM > Subject: Re: [Pulp-dev] Upcoming epel6 Dependency Issues > > After some discussion today we determined the following will be done: > > @mhrivnak is going to solicit feedback via pulp-list on how long (time or > release) users want us to continue producing el6 builds for. > I will produce a blog post identifying what this epel6 change means for > EL6 Pulp users > > We decided to not enable comments on blog posts to keep the discussion in > one place (pulp-list). Thank you @elyezer for the feedback. > > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Elyezer Rezende < [email protected] > > wrote: > > > > > > > Do these kinds of next steps make any sense? What are some other > approaches or next steps that would be good/better? > > Trying to get user feedback makes completely sense to me. Having that > feedback as early as possible will help us find how we can support Pulp > users and identify the impact of dropping RHEL6 support. > > About enabling comments on blog posts I remember we talking about that for > other reason and maybe this is a good opportunity to have it. > > -- > Elyézer Rezende > Senior Quality Engineer > irc: elyezer > > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
